About 30 people, most all wearing masks to hide their faces, gathered in Santa Barbara on Sunday to protest what they deem inappropriate behavior by the Church of Scientology. The group joined thousands of protests taking place around the world

Scientology Church Decries Wave of Worldwide Persecution

Church Picketed

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Article Tools

Joining thousands of Scientology protesters around the world Sunday was a group of about 30 people in Santa Barbara, who stood outside the Church of Scientology at 524 State Street, picketing against the church’s alleged crimes, human rights abuses, and harassment of critics. The religion-which counts actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta among its adherents-has been under recent fire not just on city streets but also in online message boards, with most of the ammunition coming from a group called “Anonymous.”

Recently, the shadowy group has taken on the Church of Scientology with a series of technological assaults aiming to overwhelm the church’s email, telephone, and Web systems, which the church has characterized as “cyber-terrorism.” The group is also thought to be responsible for releasing private videos the church claims are copyrighted, including a revealing interview of Cruise.

Sunday, members and associates of Anonymous came out from behind their computers and instead hid their faces behind masks on State Street and around the world in protest. An announcement of the Santa Barbara protest encouraged participants to remain anonymous when in public because of “Scientology’s heavy-handed tactics when dealing with protesters and critics,” and many followed the recommendation.

“It’s difficult to tell whom you can talk to about this,” said one of the participants, who identified himself with the pseudonym “Five.” Participants cited a church doctrine they called “fair play,” in which the church allegedly tries to discredit-through whatever means necessary-people who speak out against the church. Except those who came together at the Santa Barbara protest, most in the gathering claimed to not know anything about one another-not even names. But they do know they have at least one thing in common, according to Five. “Everyone’s involved for the same core reason: Decency to fellow human beings,” he said.

“There needs to be people willing to say something” - UCSB freshman William Wynn

One protester more than willing to give his name was UCSB freshman William Wynn. Wynn believes the groups’ reasons for opposing the church can be taken more seriously when there’s a name behind the statement. “There needs to be people willing to say something,” he said. Before he heard about the protest, Wynn said, he knew little about Scientology. But after hearing some claims, he researched the religion and found what he perceived to be reports of the church mistreating both current and former members with threats or physical harm. Another protest with 12-15 people was held in Santa Barbara one week prior. A third is scheduled for March 15.

When contacted, Rev. Lee Holzinger of the Santa Barbara Church of Scientology released a statement from the church. “‘Anonymous’ is a group of cyber-terrorists who hide their identities behind masks and computer anonymity,” the statement read. The group is “perpetrating religious hate crimes against churches of Scientology and individual Scientologists for no reason other than religious bigotry.” The statement also attributed to Anonymous a recent hoax involving the mailing of white powder to several Southern California Scientology churches, although the group has not claimed responsibility for this stunt.

Because Anonymous seems to lack any hierarchy or leadership, it is difficult to tell who is sanctioning and carrying out the attacks. But the statement from Holzinger said that Anonymous’s altruistic purposes are no different than those heard from terrorist or hate groups. “We are not the first to be targeted,” read the statement, calling the actions of the group deplorable. “Quite obviously, this group is not just anti-Scientology, it is anti-freedom of religion, anti-American, and anti-free speech.”

Protesters stressed that they are for freedom of religion, but are against the policies of the Church of Scientology. They support a split-off group of the organization, called Free Zone, made up of people who have left the church but still practice its teachings. “What we’re opposed to is the organization rather than the belief system,” Five said.

Comments

I'd like to point out that the proper name of their heavy-handed tactic is called "Faire Game", not Fair Play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Gam...Otherwise, this article is well-written and informative, thank you for posting it (:

I have been reading about this "church" on the net since the protests started and I would encourage everybody to do the same. Read three or four official scientologist websites and then read the same number of websites by ex-scientologists.Read the church's version of the life of L Ron Hubbard and then read the official accounts. Look up "operation snow white" and "operation freakout" and the various other crimes this "church' commits.Look at how they respond to critics with lawsuit after lawsuit, intended not to right a wrong but just to bankrupt anyone who speaks out against them.

It is very important to expose the harm Scientology can do despite that it also has a good side.A person should have the choice to take out of Scientology what is wanted & to discard what can be considered crap & especially what is paranoiac vindictiveness.Democratic choices & the right to protest against what is not liked about Scientology are freedoms that Scientologists should never be allowed to oppress.

In 1969 i was kept in Scientology as an 11yr old child on board Hubbards' ship Apollo ,my Father was thrown out of the Organization and put in Treason.Whilst this was happening Scientology opened the "Citizens Commission for Human Rights". Scientology-Where were mine and my Fathers Rights? They are also responsible for "Youth for Human Rights"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/youth_for_Human_Rights_InternationalWatch this Video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=It would seem there are rules for Scientology and a different set of rules for everyone else.See also www.scientologydisconnection.com/ my story is on there, as are more distressing stories of ex Scientologists.I for one am very grateful for Anonymous for showing the world what Scientology is really about.

I agree with Mr. William Wynn: ""There needs to be people willing to say something." More real people with real names and real faces and real lives need to be on both sides of this issue. Like you and Rev Lee Holzinger, and Tom Cruise. (Mock Cruise all you want, but the man has NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING (in this life) to loose by vigorously promoting and defending his religion. I admire and respect him for that while being concerned his apparent fanaticism.

As a practicing Roman Catholic I strongly disagree with Holzinger's & Cruise's Church and religion but will defend their rights to believe it and practice within the law. (No human sacrifice, pedophilia, child abuse, etc.). "Shunning" (among adults) is allowed; but you can't say you have no such practice and then practice it.

I respect Lee Holzinger's critical thinking and debating skills. We had a "lively" one in Griffith Park a few years ago. It ended in polarization unfortunately, but at least , then he was willing to engage in discussion. the wall of silence descended after that.

The COS is apparently playing the role of "victim" for the moment. It would be wonderful if they would stop "playing victim" and engage in an open discussion.

I would be glad to engage in open discussion and debate with "rules of engagement" publicly agreed to in advance as is customary in political debates.

My advice to Mr. Miscavige and Cruise et. al. is "tell the truth":1. Yes we have a "disconnection policy" . Explain it.

2. Yes, we have occult (confidential) information that we only reveal to those invited.

3. Yes, we charge "fixed" donations.

Answering questions, regardless if the answer is agreed with or not, goes a long way!

Just tell the truth. Your confidential material does not need to be subject to open debate, just acknowledge that it exists. WHAT exactly the confidential material is is irrelevant. THAT there is confidential material should be part of the informed consent.

The last time that scientology was discussed here it was one of the longest comment threads I have ever seen on this site. with lots of comments from scientologists but today they all must be out fishing.Or taking a flying saucer trip.Or waiting for orders from headquarters.

Seriously guys, nobody hates you, but your org has been as you say"out ethics" for a long time.

Your leaders threaten people.They sue and harass people.They deceive and manipulate and call it "handling"They break up families and try to ruin lives.Believe what you want and practice as you will (If it harms none) but the Church of scientology in its present form must end.This will happen.without violencewithout anger without hate.If you want to practice your ways seek out the Freezone people on the web but do it on a computer that does not have COS software installed on it.

Or having fun with their honeys (or in my case waiting for them to come home) -- it is Valentine's Day after all!

Dave Sweetland wrote: "I would be glad to engage in open discussion and debate with 'rules of engagement' publicly agreed to in advance as is customary in political debates."

Wonderful Dave. I'd be happy to do just that. I've spent the last 30 years looking pretty deeply into both sides of the Scientology debate, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion with you about Scientology.

Q: Do you have occult (confidential) information that you only reveal to those invited?

A: No to the "occult" part (though your mileage may vary on that, depending on what you consider "occult"), and yes to the "confidential" part. The Church answers the question "Why does the Church have confidential scriptures?" here:http://www.scientology.org/religion/c...

If you consider "out of body experiences" to be "occult", then yes, Scientology could then be called "occult". Though personally, I'd consider OOBs to be "spiritual experiences" and not "occult experiences".

Q: Do you charge "fixed" donations?

A: Churches request fixed donations, yes. They are not a requirement to be a Scientologist and take part in many of the Church's services and activities. The Church explains it here in the FAQ section called "How are Churches supported financially?": http://faq.scientology.org/page15a.htm

There's also a "Free Scientology Center" and various ways of doing a good portion of Scientology auditing and courses at various discounts and/or free.

-----

Additionally, most of the common criticisms leveled against Scientology have been pretty well debunked by Scientologist(s) here:

To get a better idea of what Anonymous is really about, watch this youtube video: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4A...It's a Fox news video from about a year ago. These Anonymous guys are not all "kitties and sunshine" -- they are seriously twisted and trying to get sympathy for their anti-religious and illegal activities, and duping a lot of people into helping them, including, apparently the Santa Barbara Independent reporter Chris Meagher, who has written a slam piece here. Sending packets of mysterious white powder to 23 different locations of the Church of Scientology in California recently was an act of terrorism, not some fun prank. These guys need to grow a conscience and figure out which side of the struggle for freedom - religious liberty - they stand on.

I am replying in haste as I am headed to work, but I wanted to at least acknowledge your reply. I agree with whoever the enlightenment era philosopher who said something like, "If you would argue with me you must define your terms."

All that I meant by the word "occult" was "secret or hidden". I believe that over half of the steps on the "Bridge" are confidential (hence "occult" since it is religious information. This is neither intrinsically "good or bad" ; "right or wrong". It is simply a fact that I have had other Scientologists (one in Santa Barbara a few years ago) simply deny that there is any confidential data in Scientology and that is simply not true.

I will check out the web sites you reference. Thank you for "engaging".

When Scientologists drag out "all the good they do" in communities, they seldom mention that the quality of their drug rehab, literacy program and Scientology Volunteer Ministers is seriously questionable.The drug rehab front group, NarCONon, is a slushy blend of junk science and Scientology coursework. In 2004, Narconon's educational outreach program was reviewed at the state level and found to be lacking in accuracy and science. It was expelled from public schools in California, Hawaii, Boston and Buffalo.

The Volunteer Ministers swarm to disasters, posing for photos and handing out little uplifting booklets to people who lack even the most basic essentials. They also deliver "nerve assists," a sort of Scientological laying on of hands, collect testimonials, disrupt mental health services, and lie about affiliation with legitimate groups such as the Red Cross.

After the tsunami, they came into the area with nothing, not even supplies for themselves, relying on local food and shelter better used for flood victims.

The literacy program is nothing but indoctrination into the works of founder L. Ron Hubbard.These programs have the apparency of social betterment while doing nothing substantial. It is all smoke and mirrors.

As to Fair Game, they often repeat "we don't do that any more." Well, they don't do it any less, either. Here is an account of my last five years' experience with Scientology fair game tactics: http://www.vyuz.com/100306_cos1.php

However, you are correct. I should have advised that I am a "declared suppressive person"; an apostate; a former member of the Church of Scientology (1969 - 2000 OTIII; Class IV).

This demonstrates the benefit of open debate and discussion: truth is revealed. The light of truth vanquishes the darkness of lies. ________________

With that said- I did "check out" Lake's referenced sites.

Just as I did not tell any flat out lies in my previous post, there are no flat out lies told on any of those sites, but the rest of the story should be told especially as regards "disconnection". See www.religiousshunning.org for a little more info on this.

Hypermellow; I have looked into "Anonymous" and it is far from an organized group but rather a "Vox Populi" of the net whose only leader is general consensus. If you study their history you will see that the group has undergone a massive change in the last month, while it used to be a small group of kids that liked to prank call and harass people, including infamous radio racist Hal Turner and accused pedophile Chris Forcano, now the group is gaining numbers on a massive scale and they are not kids out for laughs by being mean to folks on the net. (cyber terrorism according to your fox link) Now they are mostly young adults interested in the free spread of information and that puts them at odds with the church of $cientology because the more information is out there the less likely anyone is to join that "church".As for your assertion that Anonymous was involed in the mailing of white powder to $cientology offices I have been reading their websites and they are completely against any such behavior not only because such action would hurt their credibility and be a immoral act but also because it is unnecessary, all people need to do to make the COS irrelevant is to spread factual information about it.I might also point out that in Operation Freakout one of it's tactics against perceived enemy Paulette Cooper was to go into her house, steal paper with her fingerprints on it, and to use this paper to mail fake bomb threats to their own offices so in light of the COS's past acts and their history of using any means necessary against any that oppose them I would cast a very doubtful glance on any claims they make.

The CoS is the only 'religion' I'm aware of that shrouds their teaching in secrecy. "You can't handle the truth!"

That stinks of "what do you have to hide?" I can pick up a Bible, Koran, or Gita, and make my own choice. But people who publish CoS documents get hunted down with copyright law? Sorry- religious teachings are meant to be in the public domain. The CoS has no credibility with me, and it's their own very public action that has done it- no work of religious persecution.

1. Joseph Smith (1806-1844), the founder and first "Prophet" of the Mormon Church, referred to black Africans as "the sons of Cain" (D.H.C. 501), and referred to black slaves in the American south who wanted freedom as "rebellious nikkers in the slave states" (Millennial Star 22:602). He had several black "servants" in Nauvoo, USA.